Re: [RFC] drop owner assignment from platform_drivers

From: Russell King - ARM Linux
Date: Fri Oct 10 2014 - 17:34:57 EST

On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 08:26:05PM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> platform_create_bundle() calls platform_driver_probe().
> platform_driver_probe() calls platform_driver_register().
> platform_driver_register() modifies driver.owner.
> So, it is correct from the point of view that it doesn't make sense to
> set the .owner field if it gets overwritten anyhow.
> You got me wondering, though, that it could not be correct to call
> platform_driver_register() from the platform core instead of module
> init. I will check tomorrow. Still, this would be a bug independent of
> my series. Although I'd need to respin it if platform_driver_probe()
> needed a fix.

This shows what the bad side-effect of people doing "cleanups" is.
This bug was introduced by:

commit 9447057eaff871dd7c63c808de761b8732407169
Author: Libo Chen <clbchenlibo.chen@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat May 25 12:40:50 2013 +0800

platform_device: use a macro instead of platform_driver_register

I found a lot of mistakes using struct platform_driver without owner
so I make a macro instead of the function platform_driver_register.
It can set owner in it, then guys don`t care about module owner again.

Signed-off-by: Libo Chen <libo.chen@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

So, this patch subsituted one set of mistakes for another mistake...

FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.5Mbps down 400kbps up
according to
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at